Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting · AGENDA Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, Tuesday, March 14, 2017 . 4 . 10 Planning for the October 24, 2017 Joint TAC-SC

Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Thursday, September 21, 2017; 10:00 am – 4:00 pm

Sunset Maple Room, Regional San, 10060 Goethe Road, Sacramento, CA

Remote Access: Phone number: (415) 594-5500 Access Code: 943-326-397#

Screen Sharing: https://join.me/sfei-conf-cw1

Agenda

# Agenda Item and Desired Outcomes Attachments Start & Lead

1 Introductions and AgendaReview and agree on agenda and desired outcomes.

10:00 Stephen McCord

2 Decision: Approve TAC Meeting Summary for June 13, 2017 meeting and confirm/set future TAC meeting dates

Upcoming Scheduled Meetings ● Joint TAC/SC meeting: Oct 24, 2017,

Park Tower Building, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 980 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814

● Dec 21, 2017, Regional San.● TAC March 2018 meeting date? Please bring your

calendar.

Desired outcome: ● Approve TAC meeting summary● Confirm future TAC/SC meeting dates

Draft TAC Meeting Summary from June 13,

2017

10:05 Stephen McCord

3 Information: Steering Committee UpdateTAC co-Chair will summarize the July 28, 2017 SC meeting including the decisions and action items.

Desired Outcome: ● Inform TAC regarding SC decisions and activities.● Explain the rationale and context for agenda items

below.

Draft SC Meeting Summary from July 28, 2017

10:10–10:20 Joe Domagalski

Matthew Heberger

https://join.me/sfei-conf-cw1

AGENDA Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, Tuesday, March 14, 2017

2

4 Technical Subcommittee and Monitoring Updates

Brief update on subcommittee and monitoring activities

Desired outcome: ● Review running table of past and upcoming sampling

events. ● Inform TAC of subcommittee activities and

recommendations.

Table: Samples collected and schedule of planned sampling events

10:20 – 10:45 Mercury: Stephen McCord Nutrients: Janis Cooke

5 Decision: Recommendation on Year 1 Pesticides Data Report

ASC has produced a final draft of the Year 1 data report, incorporating comments from several reviewers. We are seeking a recommendation from the TAC to the SC to approve and publish the report.

Desired Outcome:

• Recommendation from TAC to SC to approve and publish the report.

Draft Report: Annual Monitoring Report FY 2015–16 – Pesticides, version 1.5

10:45 – 11:00 Matt Heberger

6 Discussion: Decision Grid for Ranking Monitoring Proposals

The Coordinating Committee has directed an ad-hoc Working Group and the TAC to continue developing a “decision grid,” or a set of criteria for ranking proposed monitoring designs. This process is intended to highlight the proposals’ strengths and weaknesses, and identify areas where changes are needed to make the monitoring respond more effectively to the Delta RMP’s management and assessment questions. It is also intended as way to better communicate the TAC’s findings to the Steering Committee, and will be used by the SC to help decide what projects to fund. The goal is to use the decision grid at an upcoming meeting to rank proposed monitoring plans for pesticides and CECs.

Desired Outcome:

● Agreement on the elements in decision grid that documents the TAC’s views on the strengths and weaknesses of monitoring proposals.

● Agreement on a process for continued development of pesticides monitoring proposals, including whether existing proposals should be (a) dropped from further consideration, or (b) modified to better fulfill the program’s objectives.

Document: Decision Grid for Evaluating Monitoring Programs

11:00 – 12:00 Brian Laurenson Matt Heberger

Lunch 12:00 – 1:00


3

7 Recruiting Science Advisors

The FY17/18 Workplan includes $10,000 to pay honoraria and travel for 2–4 independent science advisors. The advisors would be selected by the Steering Committee with input from the TAC and would commit to a 3– to 4–year term. Having advisors work with the Program over multiple years is efficient because they will become familiar with the Program and be able to help with adaptive management and review technical reports. The Bay RMP uses this approach to have ongoing, independent peer review of plans and final reports.

Desired Outcome:

• Agreement on the areas in which we would like outside advisors (e.g. pesticides, toxicity, statistics).

• Suggestions for individuals in these subject areas.

1:00 – 1:30

Matt Heberger

8 Information: Nutrients Synthesis Reports

ASC recently completed drafts of two key nutrients synthesis reports that were planned in FY16/17. We are not asking for a recommendation to approve the reports at this time. The authors are currently working on incorporating feedback from several members of the Nutrients Subcommittee. These revisions do not affect the overall conclusions of the report, and we wished to also give the TAC ample time to review and discuss these reports.

Desired Outcome:

• Feedback on the draft reports; send comments or suggested edits to ASC by October 5.

Presentations: Task 1: Assessment of Nutrient Status and Trends in the Delta in 2001–2016: Effects of drought on ambient concentrations and trends. Task 2: Delta RMP FY 2016–17 Nutrients Synthesis: Modeling to Assist Identification of Temporal and Spatial Data Gaps for Nutrient Monitoring.

1:30 – 2:30 Phil Trowbridge

9 Planning for the Pulse of the Delta

The Delta RMP Communications Plan calls for producing an Annual Monitoring Report as well as the interpretive report, The Pulse of the Delta. “The vision for the Pulse of the Delta is to make the wealth of available information on water quality in the Delta accessible to water quality managers, decision-makers, scientists, and the public.” The Steering Committee will plan the scope, allocate funding, and decide when to publish a Pulse of the Delta and its theme. We wish to solicit input and brainstorm content ideas with the TAC.

Desired Outcome:

• Input on the audience, themes for the Pulse of the Delta • Recommendations for features articles and, possibly,

co-authors

2:30 – 3:00 Matt Heberger

Break 3:00 - 3:15


4

10 Planning for the October 24, 2017 Joint TAC-SC Meeting Every fall, the joint meeting is a chance to assess the program’s goals and priorities and engage in long-range planning. Desired outcomes:

• “Plus/Delta” style suggestions on the agenda • Suggestions for what to cover

Draft Agenda Outline for the 10/24 Meeting

3:15 – 3:45

Stephen McCord

11 Information: Status of Deliverables and Action Items

Desired outcomes:

● Inform TAC about the status of RMP deliverables. ● Review action items from today’s meeting.

Delta RMP Stoplight Reports

3:45–3:50

Matthew Heberger

12 Updates and wrap-up

Desired outcomes: ● Recap of message points (TAC to SC) ● Plan agenda items for future meetings

3:50–4:00 Stephen McCord Joe Domagalski

Adjourn 4:00

Parking Lot of Potential Future Agenda Items: 1. “Delta Renewed” presentation 2. Bay Delta Live portal demo 3. Presentation on Passive Samplers 4. Presentation on DWR's Regional Salinity Modeling project 5. Field work experience / monitoring site visits 6. Methods for Seeking Consensus

Meeting Materials for Item 4

Past Monitoring Events

Date Monitoring Element Frequency CommentsAug 22-23, 2016 Mercury (water) - quarterly QuarterlyAug 22-23, 2016 Mercury (fish) - annual AnnuallySept 13, 2016 Mercury (fish) - annual AnnuallyNov 14-15, 2016 Mercury (water) - quarterly QuarterlyFeb 28, 2017 Mercury (water) - quarterly QuarterlyApril 25, 2017 Mercury (water) - quarterly QuarterlyFY17/18 sampling dates will be set by the Mercury subcommittee at a future meeting.

Jul 28, 2015 Pesticides MonthlyAug 18, 2015 Pesticides MonthlySep 23, 2015 Pesticides MonthlyOct 21, 2015 Pesticides MonthlyNov 10, 2015 Pesticides MonthlyDec 15, 2015 Pesticides MonthlyJan 19, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyFeb 17, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyMar 7, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyApr 19, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyMay 18, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyJun 15, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyJul 13, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyAug 17, 2016 Pesticides MonthlySep 20, 2016 Pesticides MonthlyOct 18, 2016 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateNov 14, 2016 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateDec 16, 2016 Pesticides Monthly Deviated from default sampling date to capture major runoff eventJan 9, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Deviated from default sampling date to capture major runoff event

Feb 28, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Deviated from default sampling date because some of the sites were inaccessible Mar 14, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateApr 25, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateMay 16, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateJun 13, 2017 Pesticides Monthly Default sampling dateAt present, there is no approved plan for sampling pesticides in FY17/18, therefore no sampling is scheduled.

April 6-8, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateMay 4-6, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJune 1-3, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJuly 6-7, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateAug 3-5, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateSept 7-9, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateOct 5-7, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateNov 2-4, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateDec 7-9, 2015 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJan 4-6, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateFeb 7-9, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateMarch 7-10, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateApril 4-7, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateMay 2-5, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJune 6-8, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJuly 5-7, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateAug 1-3, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateSept 6-8, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateOct 3-5, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateNov 7-9, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateDec 5-7, 2016 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateJan 9-11, 2017 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateFeb 6-8, 2017 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling dateMarch 6-8, 2017 Pathogens Monthly Default sampling date

No further pathogens monitoring planned by the Delta RMP.

Planned Monitoring Events

Date Monitoring Element Comments

Sept 19-21, 2017Nutrients High-Frequency Cruise (3 consecutive days) First of 3 planned sets of 3-day cruises

The 3-day high-frequency cruise will be chosen in collaboration with the nutrients subcommittee at a future meeting


Page 1

Delta Regional Monitoring Program Proposal Review Process (Revised Draft, September 8, 2017)

PURPOSE This Proposal Review Process document describes a structured study evaluation and communication tool between the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) Steering Committee (SC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This is a process for the TAC 1) to receive direction from the SC, 2) for determining consensus and documenting dissention, and 3) for utilizing a “decision grid” approach to assist with proposal review and communication between the TAC and SC. It is intended that the implementation of this process will enable clear communication between the SC and TAC, as facilitated by the Coordinating Committee, and consistent with the Delta RMP Charter.

OVERVIEW The SC directs the TAC to develop and evaluate proposed monitoring and assessment programs. The TAC selects co-chairs to facilitate meetings and direct the discussion of important issues, with support from the Delta RMP Implementing Entity (Aquatic Science Center). The Delta RMP Coordinating Committee is comprised of the Steering Committee Co-chairs, Delta RMP facilitator, and one representative from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and facilitates communications between the SC and the TAC. As necessary, the proposal process may include the Coordinating Committee to facilitate communication. In addition to SC direction, Delta RMP members and external stakeholders can propose monitoring programs to the Steering Committee. The TAC reviews and recommends “monitoring” proposals for Delta RMP funding, which forms the basis of the annual monitoring workplan. “Monitoring” in this context includes regular (status and trends) field measurements and sample analyses, as well as special studies.

BACKGROUND This decision grid approach was developed based on key components of the Delta RMP Charter, experience to-date within the TAC implementing direction from the SC, and comments from the Delta Science Program external review.

TAC Charter The Delta RMP Charter specifies the expected role and responsibilities of the TAC (emphasis added):

“The TAC makes recommendations to the SC based on technical evaluation of proposed or existing program elements. The TAC provides technical recommendations with options and justifications based on the priorities and resource allocations set by the SC. The SC then considers TAC recommendations in formulating their decisions. Recommendations should be reached through consensus. In the event that the TAC representatives cannot come to consensus on a recommendation, majority and minority opinions should be reported to the SC (See Section 7.B.6 for more details on the TAC decision-making process).”

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/program_docs/drmp_charter.pdf

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/program_docs/drmp_charter.pdf

Page 2

The Charter does not include detailed TAC governance and rules for decision-making, but instead relies on consensus building within the TAC and clear communication with the Coordinating Committee and the SC.

Example Action Items from Steering Committee At the May 3, 2017 SC meeting, the SC directed the TAC to provide the following information on previously provided pesticide program options:

“…pros/cons of the two approaches, slides showing how data from the proposed approaches would be interpreted to answer management questions, and how the costs of the Delta RMP might change with external funding for certain aspects of the projects…”

While this action item was an issue-specific SC request (pesticide program development), it is illustrative of a typical request for technical program development. Since the TAC does not currently have a robust and widely understood review process, this document is intended to provide a starting point to improve transparency and organization of the TAC review and evaluation. Communication between the TAC and SC should be clear and provide sufficient information to evaluate technical and funding considerations consistent with the Delta RMP Charter and membership needs.

Delta Science Program External Review The Delta Science Program coordinated and funded an external review of the Delta RMP monitoring planning documents in 2016 and 2017. The external reviewers generally found that the proposed monitoring components were insufficient to address the RMP Management Questions described in the Charter and generally lacked clear evaluations of how data collected would be interpreted to answer the Management Questions. Many of the stated technical shortcomings are addressed in this document.

Page 3

Proposal Review Process This Proposal Review Process document outlines the process by which proposals will be solicited, reviewed and vetted to allow for the TAC to provide recommendations to the SC for future monitoring designs and/or studies. External stakeholders, the TAC, or the TAC subcommittees (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, mercury) can propose monitoring components and/or proposals for consideration by the SC in response to priorities that are determined by the SC. The TAC will evaluate proposals using the consistent process outlined in this document and then inform the SC on recommendations and their rationale so that the SC can make funding decisions and approve proposals. A standardized review process will allow the TAC to make recommendations based on consistent and agreed-upon criteria. Dissenting opinions will also be provided to the SC. The evaluation criteria may change based on input from the SC, but they are intended to:

1. Support consistent, transparent, and technically defensible evaluations, 2. Provide a process for the TAC to follow, and 3. Enable clear communications and be responsive to the direction received from the SC.

The stepwise process is shown in Figure 1 and relies on guidance from the SC both in proposal solicitation and pre-proposal review and a technical review performed by the TAC.

Figure 1. Proposal Review Process Steps

Commented [A1]: TAC should consider or consult with SC on the correct evaluation questions. It may be helpful to prepare a template pre-proposal form.

Page 4

PROPOSAL SOLICITATION The Charter does not distinguish types of study (i.e., special studies or status and trend studies) or provide specific priorities; these are instead set by the SC. The SC provides guidance for study priorities, budget considerations, key management questions that must be addressed and any other considerations that would narrow the focus of potential proposals. For instance, considerations may include whether the proposal should focus on longer term status and trends or shorter term special studies. Evaluation criteria, including a list of required elements, should be developed and well understood prior to soliciting proposals from the TAC or external parties. This will help guide the proposal development and also will allow the TAC to evaluate the proposals in an efficient and consistent manner. Attachment A includes a list of general Evaluation Criteria that can be refined by the SC to address specific priorities and focus. The criteria can be customized (e.g., a specific management question listed as a priority to be answered). The same Evaluation Criteria should be used to give guidance to both the entities developing the proposals and to the TAC when reviewing the proposals and providing technical recommendations back to the SC.

STEERING COMMITTEE GUIDANCE AND PRE-PROPOSAL REVIEW The SC may choose to solicit pre-proposals outlining the required elements of a full proposal. The SC may review pre-proposals and provide feedback on study suitability and recommendations to consider in preparing a full proposal. The optional pre-proposal SC review is intended to identify general concerns and focus the proposal on SC membership needs . SC members may consult with TAC representatives to interpret or evaluate technical issues in the pre-proposal. The following general questions should be used to guide pre-proposal review:

1. Is the monitoring clearly addressing priority DRMP management and assessment questions?

2. Does the proposal adequately describe how the results will be presented and interpreted? 3. Does the monitoring duplicate other existing activities? 4. Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform planned policies or

regulations? Is there enough lead time to generate the information needed to support upcoming decisions?

5. Do the monitoring components need to be completed in a certain order relative to (and contingent upon) other activities?

6. Does the monitoring need more planning before being implemented? 7. Is the pre-proposal within the allocated budget?

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW Full proposals will be reviewed by the TAC based on evaluation criteria pre-determined by the SC using the Attachment A Evaluation Criteria as a starting point. The Summary Recommendations Decision Grid is a required TAC end product and the Detailed Assessment Grid is an optional evaluation developed by the TAC. The TAC prepares a discussion of consensus recommendations, dissenting opinions, and any requests for clarification from the SC.

Commented [A2]: TAC and SC should consider the scope of these review questions. It may be helpful to simplify these questions so that less technical evaluation is required and the pre-proposal is not a high effort. A template pre-proposal coule also be generated.

Page 5

Decision Grids The Summary Recommendations Decision Grid (see Attachment B template) is the primary communication tool that is intended to be more standard, though it may be modified by SC direction. The Summary Recommendations Decision Grid is a framework to ensure consistency among reviewers and assist with communication back to the SC. The Summary Recommendations Decision Grid will be prepared by the TAC as an executive summary of the TAC findings in the areas of evaluation. The Detailed Assessment Grid (see Attachment C template) can be customized through agreement by the TAC to provide more detail and consider 1) Specific Evaluation Criteria and 2) Scoring / Rating. Depending on the type of proposals, there may be a desire to use a straight forward scoring system, or it may be determined by the SC to use subjective rating terms such as “Meets Criteria”, or it may suffice to use (+) and (–) notations to indicate acceptability. Comments, including differing opinions, on how proposals meet each element of the evaluation can also be included in the decision grid. The TAC will determine how the Detailed Assessment Grid will be populated prior to the initiation of the review. It is expected that TAC members are responsible for preparing any dissenting opinion materials for the Implementing Entity to compile. TAC members are responsible for preparing technical elements of the Detailed Assessment Grid.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS While the goal of the TAC is to provide consensus recommendations to the SC, this will not always be possible. For this reason, the following guidelines should be adhered to during the TAC evaluation:

• SC may be asked to clarify its priorities and policy issues identified during the program development or review process.

• When consensus cannot be reached by the TAC on what monitoring to recommend, discuss and document differing interpretations or opinions.

• TAC message points and dissenting opinions are vetted through the TAC prior to distribution to the SC.

Recommendations would be provided to the SC in a communication packet along with the specific recommendations from the TAC, references, any dissenting points of view, and additional narrative discussion, as necessary. The Communication Packet will include the following:

1. Summary of Consensus Recommendations, Dissenting Opinions, and Requests for Steering Committee Clarification [1-2 page compilation of key messages]

2. Summary Recommendation Decision Grid [required] 3. Detailed Assessment Grids [optional, format decided by TAC]

Commented [A3]: Need to determine if scoring is required and how it would be done. Could also be done on the Summary Decision Grid

Page 6

Attachment A. Evaluation Criteria for Decision Grids Potential evaluation criteria fall into three categories: 1) Management and Assessment Questions, 2) Technical Foundation, and 3) Budget, Priority, Coordination and Other Considerations. The SC will give guidance on whether some criteria have more importance than others, whether or not some criteria can be given more weight, and/or whether some criteria are not applicable. The listed evaluation criteria are important for various reasons but may not be comprehensive. There is flexibility in this process for the SC to add new (or change) evaluation criteria for the Summary Recommendations Decision Grid and the TAC to decide on elements or the need for the Detailed Assessment Grid. Evaluation criteria should be reviewed and refined prior to soliciting and reviewing proposals. The SC can communicate priorities and offer guidance to the TAC in its review process by 1) selecting pre-proposals that address SC priorities and 2) providing the TAC with refined evaluation criteria.

I. Management and Assessment Questions Management questions are set by the SC, and the TAC may propose assessment questions as testable study components to help answer the management questions. Assessment questions are included as part of the Monitoring Design Summary (revised June 2015); however, these may change over time depending on study needs and to build toward addressing the management questions. Prior to soliciting proposals, the Management and Assessment Questions should be prioritized by the SC to give guidance to both the entities submitting a proposal and the TAC members reviewing the proposals. A) Is the proposal responsive to the Charter management and assessment question(s)

prioritized by the SC? 1) Status and Trends. Is there a problem or are there signs of a problem?

a) Is water quality currently, or trending towards, adversely affecting beneficial uses of the Delta?

b) Which constituents may be impairing beneficial uses in subregions of the Delta? c) Are trends similar or different across different subregions of the Delta?

2) Sources, Pathways, Loadings, and Processes. Which sources and processes are most important to understand and quantify? a) Which sources, pathways, loadings, and processes (e.g., transformations,

bioaccumulation) contribute most to identified problems? b) What is the magnitude of each source and/or pathway (e.g., municipal wastewater,

atmospheric deposition)? c) What are the magnitudes of internal sources and/or pathways (e.g. benthic flux) and

sinks in the Delta? 3) Forecasting Water Quality Under Different Management Scenarios

a) How do ambient water quality conditions respond to different management scenarios? b) What constituent loads can the Delta assimilate without impairment of beneficial

uses? c) What is the likelihood that the Delta will be water quality-impaired in the future?

4) Effectiveness Tracking

Commented [A4]: These questions are replicated in the decision grids. It may be more useful to provide more narrative discussion of the assessment an remove the specific questions.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/wq_monitoring_plans/drmp_monitoring_design.pdf

Page 7

a) Are water quality conditions improving as a result of management actions such that beneficial uses will be met?

b) Are loadings changing as a result of management actions? B) Does the proposal adequately state and support assessment questions? For example:

1) Are the assessment questions testable or otherwise provide an outcome threshold that can be measured against?

2) Does the proposal adequately demonstrate how the results will be presented and interpreted? [see proposed process diagram]

II. Technical Foundation The technical foundation of the proposal is evaluated based on how well the proposed study answers the management and assessment questions. This evaluation is based on the USEPA Data Quality Objectives guidance, which can be used as a reference for this evaluation. This includes both the assessment of data quality, geographic and temporal characterization, and how well understood the proposed tool “outcomes” are. The following are the evaluation criteria that may be modified by the SC to appropriately evaluate different types of proposed studies and are the basis for the Summary Recommendation Decision Grid. The Detailed Decision Grid is also based on these criteria, and may be modified based on mutual agreement by the TAC.

A. Are monitoring objectives clearly defined? B. Are the data sources and information inputs clearly stated? C. Is the geographic scope of the study well defined? Does the study characterize

conditions within the Delta, tributaries into the Delta, or only a smaller assessment area? D. Is the temporal scope and resolution of the study well defined? Does the study clearly

define the conditions of interest (e.g. high flows)? Can the results of the study be used to evaluate trends over the timescale of interest or target magnitude of change?

E. Is the analytical approach adequately described and developed? F. How well established and understood are the monitoring tools?

i. Does the study employ standard analytical methods? How well tested are the methods?

ii. How well are outcomes from monitoring tools linked to environmental effects? iii. Are effect thresholds known that reliably characterize beneficial use impairment? iv. How well are effect end points linked to impacts on beneficial uses – if not, are

required additional studies to provide such linkage well articulated? G. Are measurement quality objectives clearly stated to ensure that data collected are of

sufficient quality and quantity to support the study objectives? H. Does the proposal clearly state how the data will be collected?

III. Budget, Priority, Coordination, and Other Considerations A) Does the proposal meet the budget specified by the SC? B) Priority/timeliness - Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform

planned policies or regulations? 1) Does the monitoring respond to a stated SC priority?

Commented [A5]: We need to provide some additional detail on these assessments, especially if scoring is determined as necessary.

Commented [A6]: The Steering Committee should provide some additional guidance on how this should be addressed. For example, SCCWRP has used method levels to describe stages of method development and appropriate uses for that data.

https://www.epa.gov/quality/guidance-systematic-planning-using-data-quality-objectives-process-epa-qag-4

Page 8

2) Is there enough lead time to generate the information needed to support upcoming decisions?

3) Do the monitoring elements need to be completed in a certain order relative to (and contingent upon) other ongoing or future activities?

4) Can the monitoring be coordinated with other efforts to increase data power or reduce overall study cost or duration?

C) Will the study build upon, add to, and/or compliment other studies conducted by the Delta RMP?

D) Do the monitoring objectives incorporate consideration of regulatory program requirements (TMDLs, Waste Discharge Requirements, Basin Plan monitoring and surveillance, etc.)?

E) Can the study leverage external studies and resources for added efficiency or additional priority benefits?

F) Is the monitoring plan complete or is additional information necessary before the study could be implemented?

Attachment B. Summary Recommendation Decision Grid Template Evaluation Criteria Score Comments

II. Management / Assessment Questions A. [Relevant Management questions listed here as

directed by the Steering Committee or as appropriate for the proposed study]

B. Are the assessment questions testable or do they otherwise provide an outcome threshold?

C. Does the proposal adequately describe how the results will be presented and interpreted?

III. Technical Foundation A. Are monitoring objectives clearly defined? B. Are the data sources and information inputs clearly

stated? C. Is the geographic scope of the study well defined?

Does the study characterize conditions within the Delta, tributaries into the Delta, or only a smaller assessment area?

D. Is the temporal scope and resolution of the study well defined? Does the study clearly define the conditions of interest (e.g. high flows)? Can the results of the study be used to evaluate trends over the timescale of interest or target magnitude of change?

E. Is the analytical approach adequately described and developed?

F. How well established and understood are the monitoring tools?

G. Are measurement quality objectives clearly stated to ensure that data collected are of sufficient quality and quantity to support the study objectives?

H. Does the proposal clearly state how the data will be collected?

IV. Budget, Priority, Coordination, and Other Considerations

A. Does the proposal meet the budget specified by the SC?

Commented [A7]: Need to develop more information on how to fill this out

Commented [A8]: Need to refer directly to DQOs

Commented [A9]: See comment above regarding Steering Committee guidance

Evaluation Criteria Score Comments

B. Priority/timeliness - Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform development of planned policies or regulations?

C. Will the study build upon, add to, and/or compliment other studies conducted by the Delta RMP?

D. Do the monitoring objectives incorporate consideration of regulatory program requirements (TMDLs, Waste Discharge Requirements, Basin Plan monitoring and surveillance, etc.)?

E. Can the study leverage external studies and resources for added efficiency or additional priority benefits?

F. Is the monitoring plan complete or is additional information necessary before the study could be implemented?

Scoring Example: Each criterion could be scored on a scale of 1-3 based on the following criteria: 1 – Adequately addresses the scoring criterion 2 – Partially addresses the scoring criterion 3 – Does not address the scoring criterion

Commented [A10]: Stoplight type approach rather than scoring? Need to resolve scoring approach.

Attachment C. Detailed Assessment Grid Template [Cam Irvine to provide detailed version]

DETAILED PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA (DISCUSSION DRAFT) Evaluation Criteria Comments/ Proposal Score1

I. Management / Assessment Questions

Links to Management Action(s)

A. Management Questions (DRMP Charter)2

1. Is there a problem or are there signs of a problem? [Consider - Will the proposed study allow the DRMP to determine the extent to which pesticides contribute to toxicity in the Delta?] a. Is water quality currently, or trending towards, adversely affecting beneficial uses of the Delta? b. Which constituents may be impairing beneficial uses in subregions of the Delta? c. Are trends similar or different across different subregions of the Delta?

2. Sources, Pathways, Loadings, and Processes. Which sources and processes are most important to

understand and quantify? [Consider - Will the proposed study allow a better understanding of the spatial/temporal distribution of currently used pesticides identified as likely causes of toxicity in the delta?] a. Which sources, pathways, loadings, and processes (e.g., transformations, bioaccumulation) contribute

most to identified problems? b. What is the magnitude of each source and/or pathway (e.g., municipal wastewater, atmospheric

deposition)? c. What are the magnitudes of internal sources and/or pathways (e.g. benthic flux) and sinks in the Delta?

3. Forecasting Water Quality Under Different Management Scenarios

a. How do ambient water quality conditions respond to different management scenarios? b. What constituent loads can the Delta assimilate without impairment of beneficial uses? c. What is the likelihood that the Delta will be water quality-impaired in the future?

4. Effectiveness Tracking

a. Are water quality conditions improving as a result of management actions such that beneficial uses will be met?

b. Are loadings changing as a result of management actions?

B. Assessment Questions?3

Status and Trends

1 Scoring Example: Each criterion could be scored on a scale of 1-3 based on the following criteria: 1 – Adequately addresses the scoring criterion, 2 – Partially addresses the scoring criterion, 3 – Does not address the scoring criterion 2 Is the proposal responsive to the Charter management and assessment question(s) prioritized by the SC? Consider – what information is needed to answer these Management Questions and if tools are currently available. Note that not all Management Questions may be relevant or need to be addressed by any/all proposals. 3 Assessment Questions from the DRMP QAPP (2016). Example provided for pesticides. Note that not all Assessment Questions may be relevant or need to be addressed by any/all proposals.

Commented [IC1]: This table is intended to be a starting point for the TAC to develop a consistent approach for evaluating DRMP proposals. After refining this template, it would serve as a detailed example for any DRMP study proposal evaluation. The table should be consistent with the summary matrix, sufficient for any review while recognizing that specific line-items may not be necessary/relevant to all proposals, and with flexibility to be revised as needed. This draft includes content from various drafts and discussions and pesticide-specific details (e.g., Assessment Questions) could be replaced with the appropriate content for other TAC subcommittees.

Commented [IC2]: These Management and Assessment Questions are copied directly taken from the DRMP Charter. Proposals can be evaluated based on how well they support the DRMPs ability to address them, but note that not all of the MQs and AQs may be need to be addressed by any/all proposals.

Evaluation Criteria Comments/ Proposal Score1

1. To what extent do pesticides contribute to observed toxicity in the Delta? 4

1.1. Which pesticides or degradates have the highest potential to be causing toxicity in the Delta and therefore should be the priority for monitoring and management? a. If samples are toxic do detected pesticides explain the toxicity? b. If samples are not toxic do detected pesticide concentrations exceed other thresholds of concern,

e.g., water quality objectives or Office of Pesticide programs aquatic toxicity benchmarks)? 1.2. What are the spatial and temporal extents of lethal and sublethal aquatic and sediment toxicity observed

in the Delta? a. Do aquatic or sediment toxicity tests at targeted sites indicate a toxic response? b. If answer to A is yes, which other toxicity indicators should guide monitoring and management of

pesticides in years 2+?

2. What are the spatial/temporal distributions of concentrations of currently used pesticides identified as likely causes of observed toxicity? 2.1 Which pesticides have the highest risk potential based on DPR’s risk prioritization model and should be included in chemical analyses?

a. Is the list of pesticides included in USGS pesticide scan sufficient for Delta RMP monitoring design?

b. Are methods available to monitor pesticides with high-risk potential not included in USGS pesticide scan?

2.2. How do concentrations of the pesticides with the highest risk potential vary seasonally and spatially?

Sources, Pathways, Loadings, & Processes 1. What are the principal sources and pathways responsible for aquatic and sediment toxicity observed in the Delta? 2. What are the fates of prioritized pesticides and degradates in the environment? 2.1. Do physical/chemical properties of priority pesticides, application rates and processes, and ambient conditions influence the degree of toxicity observed? 3. What are the spatial/temporal use patterns of priority pesticides?

Forecasting & Scenarios 1. How do pesticide concentrations respond to different management scenarios? 2. What current use pesticide loads can the Delta assimilate without exceeding water quality criteria established to protect beneficial uses? 3. How will climate change affect concentrations and/or loadings of pesticides and impacts to aquatic species?

Effectiveness Tracking 1. Are pesticide-related toxicity impacts decreasing over time?

C. Does the proposal adequately demonstrate how the results will be presented and interpreted? [see proposed process diagram]

4 Consider – what information is needed to answer these Assessment Questions and if tools are currently available.


D. Does/how does the proposal address or contribute to a body of data that could be used to answer Management Questions and Assessment Questions in the future (if not all addressed initially)?

II. Technical Foundation

A. Are the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs; EPA 2006) clearly defined? (External PR Comment)

1. State the Problem 2. Identify the Goals of the Study 3. Identify Information Inputs 4. Define the Boundaries of the Study 5. Develop the Analytical Approach 6. Specify Performance or Acceptance Criteria 7. Develop the Plan for Obtaining Data

B. Geographic Scope

1. Is the location selection rationale given and do these stations support the study objectives? 2. Is the geographic scope of the study well defined? 3. Does the study characterize conditions within the Delta, tributaries into the Delta, or only a smaller

assessment area? 4. Does the proposal aim to characterize conditions in the Delta (as a whole) or at fixed stations? (External PR

Comment)

C. Temporal Scope and Resolution

1. Is the temporal scope and resolution of the study well defined? 2. Does the study clearly define the conditions of interest (e.g. high flows)? 3. Can the results of the study be used to evaluate trends over the timescale of interest or target magnitude of

change? 4. Program reliability and variability would be quantified over long term (External PR Comment)

D. Sampling

1. How do the sampling methods fit on the ‘established methods’ spectrum and how does that affect data interpretation and usability for decision making or answering study objectives?

2. Do the sample collection or analysis methods introduce any known or potential bias (e.g. cross sectional composites vs. side bank grabs, sample collection in the non-target points of the hydrograph, etc.)?

3. Are there data to be considered (e.g., controls or reference samples) when interpreting results?

E. Analysis

1. How do the analytical methods fit on the spectrum of ‘established methods’?

2. Are data expected to be sufficiently reliable and reproducible for answering study objectives and/or for decision making?

Commented [IC3]: Methods don’t need to be standard, but I expect we want to understand data usability. Rankings on the SCCWRP methods usability chart could be used to answer this questions in a standard format, if adopted for use by the SC in consultation with the TAC.


3. Statistical design – is there sufficiently robust coverage for a strong statistical evaluation that will detect changes over time? (External PR Comment)

F. Interpretation

1. How well are outcomes from monitoring tools linked to environmental effects? 2. Are effect thresholds known that reliably characterize beneficial use impairment? 3. How well are effect end points linked to impacts on beneficial uses – if not, are required additional

studies to provide such linkage well articulated? 4. How well are effect end points linked to management decisions? 5. Proposal addresses reproducibility and reliability of program (External PR Comment)

III. Budget, Priority, Coordination, and Other Considerations

A. Does the proposal meet the budget specified by the SC?

1. Is the budget met? 2. Is the proposed study scalable (workable with increased or decreased funding)? 3. Is the proposed study modular (expandable to include other studies (e.g., CECs, biomarkers, or tissues) if

funding is available?

B. Priority/timeliness

1. Does the monitoring respond to a stated SC priority? 2. Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform development of planned policies or

regulations? 3. Is there enough lead time to generate the information needed to support upcoming decisions? 4. Do the monitoring elements need to be completed in a certain order relative to (and contingent upon) other

ongoing or future activities? 5. Can the monitoring be coordinated with other efforts to increase data power or reduce overall study cost or

duration?

C. Will the study build upon, add to, and/or compliment other studies conducted by the Delta RMP?

1. Are there links to relevant current programs (e.g., pyrethroid control program)? (External PR Comment) 1. Is there a connection with current SPOT sampling locations? 2. Are there links to MS4 permittee sampling?

D. Do the monitoring objectives incorporate consideration of regulatory program requirements (TMDLs, Waste Discharge Requirements, Basin Plan monitoring and surveillance, etc.)

E. Can the study leverage external studies and resources for added efficiency or additional priority benefits?

F. Is the monitoring plan complete or is additional information necessary before the study could be implemented, interpreted, or completed?


Delta RMP Joint Technical Advisory and Steering Committee Meeting

October 24, 2017 9:30 am – 4:30 pm Delta Stewardship Council Building 980 9th Street, 2nd Floor, Room A

Sacramento, CA

DRAFT List of Discussion Topics/Agenda Items

1. Decision matrix applied to pesticides and CEC monitoring proposals

2. Process for setting fees, particularly for MS4 Phase 2 participants

3. Revisions to the Delta RMP Charter

4. Planning budget for FY18/19 and onwards – set priorities for each of the focus areas (pesticides, nutrients, mercury)

5. Funding for Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) projects, to be led by Josie Tellers

6. Visualization of Delta RMP pesticide data with Tableau software, to be led by Greg Gearhardt


Delta RMP Action Items Stoplight Report

Key to Status Colors:Green indicates greater than 90 days until the deliverable is due.Yellow indicates a deliverable is due within 90 days.Red indicates a deliverable that is overdue.

Primary Meeting Date Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

1 SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 Finalize the 5/3/2017 SC Meeting Summary and post tothe program website

Matthew Heberger 08/10/17 Complete

2 SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 Check on how TAC meetings are staffed and determinewhether ASC hours are warranted

Matthew Heberger 10/01/17

3

SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 Revise the charter to require Finance Committee approvalfor switching money between tasks. Up to $5,000 atdiscretion of the Implementing Entity, more than $5,000shall require FC approval, and more than $25,000 shallrequire approval by the Steering Committee.

Matthew Heberger 10/01/17 Draft charter language to bevoted on in October

4SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 OIMA staff to prepare a visualization of Delta RMP

pesticides/toxicity data using Tableau, to include variouswater quality standards, benchmarks and thresholds foraquatic toxicity...

Greg Gearhart 10/24/17

5SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 For the Decision Grid for ranking monitoring proposals,

consider (1) assigning points, (2) assigning weights, and(3) adding something related to statistical expertise in theexperimental design.

Matthew Heberger 09/10/17

6

SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 Provide comments on the Year 1 Pesticides Data Reportby end of August. Any suggestions that are interpretive innature will NOT be included in this report, but ratherforwarded to the authors of the forthcoming InterpretiveReport.

Steering Committee 08/31/17 Complete

7

SC Action Items 7/28/2017 07/28/17 Put together SEP proposal for CEC monitoring Matthew Heberger 11/30/17 Presumably this has to happenafter the Regional Board hasarticulated its CEC policy moreclearly. There are currentlyplanning meetings going on tocome up with a strategy with thePOTW and MS4 communities.

8TAC Action Items from6/13/2017

06/13/17 Draft and distribute for review “Highlights” with the mostimportant outcomes (action items, recommendations, etc.)of the meeting that would be presented to the SteeringCommittee.

Stephen McCord 06/30/17 Complete Stephen was on vacation andunable to give this update. JoeD. gave the standard TACupdate.

9 TAC Action Items from6/13/2018

06/13/17 Set 12/12/17 meeting location and announce to TAC Matthew Heberger 07/14/17 Complete

10

TAC Action Items from6/13/2019

06/13/17 Review the revised pesticides data report and submit anyfinal comments by June 30 to Thomas Jabusch (ASC).Email the TAC ([email protected]) if you have majorconcerns that would prevent recommending to theSteering Committee that the report be approved

TAC members 06/30/17 Complete


06/13/17 Send out the next version of the FY15/16 Pesticides DataReport when any remaining comments and edits areincorporated, including both “clean” and “tracked changes”versions

Thomas Jabusch 07/10/17 Complete


06/13/17 Convene a meeting of the Pesticides Subcommittee forthe week of July 12


Page 1 of 5



06/13/17 Develop a “strawman” set of options for the report,including staffing and cost



06/13/17 Work with the permittees subgroup to further develop theevaluation criteria, and distribute it to TAC members forcomments/editing

Brian Lauerson 06/25/17 Complete


06/13/17 esticides Subcommittee: Discuss the draft evaluationcriteria



06/13/17 With Brian Laurenson (LWA), compile optional processesfor the TAC to make consensus decisions


17 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Finalize the 1/26/2017 SC Meeting Summary and post tothe program website


18 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Determine the date and location for the Fall 2017 SteeringCommittee meeting and send invitation to the SC

Matthew Heberger 05/25/17 Complete Set for Oct 24

19 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Update the Financial Memo with minor edits Matthew Heberger 05/11/17 Complete

20 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Send out revised draft Fact Sheet to the SC to review withdeadline for comments


21SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Finalize minor portions of the FY17/18 Workplan that

require changes in response to input received at themeeting and the decision of the Steering Committee

Matthew Heberger 05/15/17 Complete Pesticides question stilloutstanding.

22

SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Present the SC with information from the TAC related tothe pesticides proposals: TAC meeting summary,pros/cons of the two approaches, slides showing how datafrom the proposed approaches would be interpreted toanswer management questions, and how the costs of theDelta RMP might change with external funding for certainaspects of the projects

Matthew Heberger 07/21/17 Complete The TAC requested additionalguidance on how to evaluatecompeting proposals, and hasbegun a process for developingthis, with the approval of SC co-chairs.

23SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Prepare a revised scope and budget for the CUP/Toxicity

Year 1-2 Interpretative Report that includes synthesis ofreadily available information in the Delta, not just DeltaRMP data


24SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Regarding the Chlorophyll-a Intercalibration Study for

FY17/18, provide Gregg Gearheart with the specificsabout how partner agencies can participate



03/14/17 Reserve meeting room for 9/21 TAC meeting; send emailinvitation



03/14/17 Follow up with SFWCA and SWAMP regardingcontribution matching funds to support the chlorophyllsensor intercalibration effort


27


03/14/17 Look into whether a Delta RMP HABs monitoring projectwould be eligible for Water Board grant funding

Thomas Jabusch 03/31/17 Complete Talked to R. Breuer: Answer:Probably not at this point. Verylimited funding allocated toanother project for Deltasatellite surveillance andresponse. Another complicationis the closing of WPCL. There iscurrently no lab to do theanalyses.


03/14/17 Revise Pesticides proposal 1 to include only one site,Sacramento River at Hood

Debra Denton 03/31/17 Complete

29


03/14/17 Revise pesticide proposal 2A with the trends option for alonger list of pesticides from the DPR model (removeother options) and add draft site selection criteria. Makesure the planning budget is sufficient for 3 meetingsbetween July 1 and September 30


Page 2 of 5


30


03/14/17 In nutrients proposal package, increase the funding listedfor FY18/19 for the chlorophyll intercalibration study toindicate that we are embarking on a multi-year effort andlist other likely collaborators: USGS, SWAMP, DWR,NMS, Bay RMP, SFCWA


31


03/14/17 Prepare high-level summary of TAC-recommendedproposals for nutrients, Hg, and pesticides. To include thefollowing topics: 1) Management Drivers Addressed, 2)Assessment Questions Answered, 3) External ReviewComments Addressed, 4) Data Quality Objectives/NullHypothesis

Thomas Jabusch 04/15/17 Complete Add abstracts to each proposalwith this information.


03/14/17 Prepare memo on power analysis for Pesticide Proposal 2to share with interested TAC members, including caveatsrelated to using a priori estimates of variance


33


03/14/17 Schedule a pesticide subcommittee meeting for the 2ndweek of April to discuss: data evaluation process andQAPP for Proposal 1, site selection criteria for Proposal 2,target analytes for Proposal 2, bullets on pros/cons of TACrecommendation to SC



03/14/17 Ask Regional Board staff to figure out if dropping PesticideProposal 3 will reduce the total revenue for FY17/18(because Ag coalitions may reduce their contribution).



03/14/17 Send draft CUP report to TAC as a Word document Thomas Jabusch 03/17/17 Complete


03/14/17 Schedule a webinar to present and discuss the CurrentUse Pesticides draft report


37


03/14/17 Schedule a webinar to present CD3 visualization, datadownload and metadata

Matthew Heberger 04/15/17 We have decided to move thisto July so that it can be includedin the FY17/18 budget. (Thiswas requested by participants,but not included in priorbudgets.)

38 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Finalize the 10/18/16 Meeting Summary and post to thewebsite


39 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Determine the location for the 7/28/17 meeting and sendan invitation to the SC


40

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Confirm whether Delta RMP measurement methods formercury and ancillary parameters are compatible withother programs, to ensure that the data we collect can bereadily combined with data collected by others.

Thomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Complete Thomas has talked to USGSand MLML and confirmed thatthe data collection and analysismethods are the same, andthere is no concern withcomparing and combiningmercury data.

41SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Add an agenda for the next SC Meeting on the

Communications Plan and access topreliminary/provisional data. Use the technicalpowerpoints presented as a case study.

Philip Trowbridge 04/30/17 Complete Topic added to list of items fornext SC meeting.

42

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 ASC to discuss with State Board (Greg Gearheart andJanis Cooke) on developing options for HABs monitoring.Questions include: where does the Delta RMP fit in, howmight we complement other programs, what kind ofoptions are there for projects in the FY17/18 budget orSEP funds? ASC to work with Greg Gearheart (StateBoard) on this.


43 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Nutrients subcommittee to discuss HABs at a futuremeeting, and to come up with options to present to the SC


Page 3 of 5


44SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Organize a debrief meeting with State Board staff, USGS,

and ASC to develop lessons learned which might makethe CEDEN upload easier next time.

Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete Meeting is scheduled for 3/6/17.

45

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 ASC will look into hiring administrative staff to performcertain roles, such as invoicing, taking meeting notes.

Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete We have contacted Ms. DaphneOrzalli, who has confirmed herinterest and given us a quote forprofessional services at$40/hour. The financecommittee will discuss the prosand cons at their next meeting.

46

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Beginning July 2017, all financials will be reported forcurrent fiscal year only. Remaining funds from prior yearswill be rolled over to the current year.

Matthew Heberger 07/31/17 Complete We have looked into this issueand discussed it with ouraccountant and financialmanager and concluded we canmake a seamless transitionwithout any issues. Frameworkpresented to FinanceSubcommittee on 4/25/2017,and approved.

47

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Prepare a memo for the next SC meeting with options forsetting fees with pros and cons

Philip Trowbridge 04/30/17 Complete Slides discussing the optionsand preferred alternative wereprepared for the May 3 meetingbut the discussion was tabledand will be presented on July28.

48SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Create a 1- to 2-page factsheet about Delta RMP to help

with fundraising. Describe the purpose, accomplishments,and benefits.

Matthew Heberger 03/31/17 Complete Draft factsheet to be presentedat the May 3 SteeringCommittee meeting.

49SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Convene a meeting of the Revenue Subcommittee. Val Connor 04/30/17 Complete The Revenue Committee has

met and is planning futuremeetings.

50 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Send a PDF of the nutrients presentations and links to the Matthew Heberger 02/01/17 Complete

51

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Revise the response to the External Review Committee.Committee members to submit proposed language toASC. Following revisions, ASC will re-send the responseto the SC showing the edits in track changes. SCmembers will have one week to respond. If no commentsare received, the letter will be finalized and sent to thereviewers.


52 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Schedule a meeting between Planning Committee and theIndependent Reviewers for March.

Yumiko Henneberry 02/10/17 Complete

53

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Develop new text for Attachment 3 (the flowchart) to bediscussed at the fall SC-TAC meeting.

Matthew Heberger 09/30/17 At the Jan 26, 2017 meeting, itwas discussed that theflowchart had served a usefulpurpose at the beginning of theprogram, allowing dischargersand regulators to come to acommon understanding of howdata collected by the programwould (and would not) be used.However, it no longer reflectscurrent policy or procedures.Water Board staff suggestedreplacing it with a couple ofparagraphs.

54 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Accept approved edits and post new Charter to website. Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete

55SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Put on the agenda for a future SC meeting: How we will

be interacting with the Delta Science Program, especiallyas it regards the findings of the recent report State of Bay-Delta Science, 2016, which concerns us directly.

Philip Trowbridge 02/01/17 Complete Item added to agenda itemparking lot.

Page 4 of 5


56 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Put on the agenda for a future SC meeting: CECworkshop and State Board CEC Guidance.

Philip Trowbridge 02/01/17 Complete Item added to agenda itemparking lot.

Page 5 of 5

Delta RMP Deliverables Stoplight Report

Delta RMP Deliverables Scorecard Report

Key to Status Colors:Green indicates greater than 90 days until the deliverable is due.Yellow indicates a deliverable due within 90 days.Red indicates a deliverable that is overdue.

Project Primary Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

1 Delta RMP (FY15/16) CUP Monitoring Annual Monitoring Report forFY15/16 CUP Monitoring

Thomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Complete Data need to be uploaded to CEDEN by 2/1/17.

2

Delta RMP (FY15/16) Pathogens Study - Year 2 Sample Collection and DataManagement of Year 2Pathogens Data

Amy Franz 07/31/17 Complete Data from BioVir and Eurofins. Formatting,transcribing field collection information, performingQA/QC review, and uploading field and analyticalresults to SFEI's RDC database and replicating toCEDEN. Expected to be complete by June 15, 2017.

3 Delta RMP (FY15/16) Pathogens Study - Year 2 Quality Assurance Report onYear 2 Pathogens Data

Don Yee 07/31/17 Complete QAO report. Funded from Data Managementbudget.

4 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Financial Subcommittee reportand conference call

Philip Trowbridge 01/05/17 Complete

5 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Steering Committee Meeting #3and Summary

Philip Trowbridge 01/26/17 Complete

6 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7A1.1 Synthesis Report -Additional data analyses


7 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Program Management FY17/18 Annual Workplan andBudget

Philip Trowbridge 02/10/17 Complete Draft for Finance Subcommittee sent 4/19/17. Finalby 6/30/16.

8

Delta RMP (FY16/17) Program Management Updated Monitoring Design Philip Trowbridge 02/15/17 Complete Deliverable not relevant for this fiscal year. Followingthe External Review, the Monitoring Design isexpected to need a major revision, which is morethan was planned for FY16/17. Minor revisions, suchas updating the target analyte lists, would be awaste of effort at this point. The update to theMonitoring Design will have its own budget line forFY17/18.

9Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7A1.3 Synthesis Report -

Prepare synthesis reportThomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Draft report has been distributed to the Nutrients

Subcommittee, which will be reviewing it at ameeting in August.

10 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance TAC Meeting #3 and Summary Thomas Jabusch 03/15/17 Complete

11Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7B2.3 Modeling and Synthesis

of Modeling Results - Runsimulations

Marianne Guerin 04/30/17 Complete By 4/30/16: Final model simulation results andoutput

12 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7B2.4 Nutrients - Analyze andsynthesize model output data

Thomas Jabusch 05/04/17 Complete This analysis has been completed and incorporatedin the draft Synthesis Report.

13 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Steering Committee Meeting #4and Summary


14Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7C3.1 Nutrients- Statistical

ModelingThomas Jabusch 05/31/17 We are cooperating with Marcus Beck of USEPA

Office of Research and Development, who hassubmitted a manuscript with his analysis.

15 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance TAC Meeting #4 and Summary Matthew Heberger 06/14/17 Complete

Page 1 of 2

Project Primary Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

16Delta RMP (FY16/17) Quality Assurance QAPP Update Thomas Jabusch 06/14/17 As of 9/11/2017, ASC staff are working to resolve

comments and suggestions made by the SWAMPQA officer.

17 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Communications Technical Workshop / summarymemorandum of findings

Philip Trowbridge 06/30/17 Complete SC decided not to hold a technical workshop inFY16/17.

18 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Field Sampling Report forFY16/17 CUP Monitoring

Philip Trowbridge 09/29/17

19 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Data Management ofFY16/17 CUP Data

Amy Franz 12/31/17 Expecting electronic data delivery from USGS'Denver lab in October 2017.

20 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Quality Assurance Report forFY16/17 CUP Monitoring

Don Yee 12/31/17

21 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Permit Compliance Data forILRP

Amy Franz 02/01/18 Complete No longer required per agreement with RegionalBoard.

22Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Annual Monitoring Report for

FY16/17 CUP MonitoringThomas Jabusch 02/28/18 The SC voted on 7/28 that this was no longer

necessary, and that funds for this task should bereallocated to the Interpretive Report.

23Delta RMP (FY16/17) Mercury 8. Mercury YR1 report

summarizing fish and wateranalyses

Thomas Jabusch 12/03/18

Page 2 of 2

Documents

Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting · AGENDA Delta RMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, Tuesday, March 14, 2017 . 4 . 10 Planning for the October 24, 2017 Joint TAC-SC